One of my favorite Houston radio personalities, Dan Patrick of KSEV-AM, (no, not Dan Patrick of ESPN, though Houston's Dan Patrick is also a former sportscaster) has filed to run for the Texas Senate in SD7.

Radio talk-show host Dan Patrick signed off the air Thursday when he officially filed in the Republican primary for state Senate District 7.

Patrick's filing makes him the last of previously announced candidates to formally enter the four-way GOP race that also includes state Reps. Peggy Hamric and Joe Nixon and Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis. State Sen. Jon Lindsay is not seeking re-election in the heavily Republican district.

F. Michael Kubosh, a Harris County bail bondsman, has filed for the seat in the Democratic primary.

With the large field, the race is likely to be decided in a runoff between the top two vote getters. Several of Patrick's opponents have conducted polls, and each poll shows its candidate coming in second.

I think it likely that Dan Patrick will not need a runoff to win, given his high name recognition and grassroots support. One poll shows him with 54% of likely GOP primary voters supporting him. In addition, there are other signs of support.

* Of the 125 serving precinct chairs in Senate District 7, over 85 (or 68%) have endorsed Dan Patrick for Senate and have pledged to help get out the vote for Dan. More precinct chairs are expected to endorse after the filing deadline (January 2, 2006).

* More than 700 have signed on to volunteer for the Dan Patrick Campaign.

* The Dan Patrick for Senate Campaign has received contributions from over 800 individuals who support DanÂ’s message for change in Austin.

Here are the six points Dan has been emphasizing for years as a broadcaster, and on which he is running for the legislature.

1. Reduce the appraisal cap to 3% per year on all residential property

Texans are being taxed out of their homes. We must end the stealth 8–10% annual tax increase on homeowners. If local governments feel a need to raise revenue, they should do so by raising the tax rate; not by hiding behind an automatic appraisal increase. Voters can then determine if the increase was necessary and if those elected officials are worthy of re-election.

2. Illegal immigration – secure our borders now

The Federal Government has failed to protect our borders as they are constitutionally required. It is time we use Texas taxpayersÂ’ resources to protect our borders instead of providing services to those that entered this state illegally. It is time for Texans to protect the Texas border.

3. Reduce government spending now

We elected Republican majorities in the Texas House and Senate and expected them to be fiscally conservative. Our legislature has let us down. The most recent state budget includes a 20% increase in spending. We should focus on needs-based-budgeting, rather than revenue-based-budgeting.

4. Responsible education funding

School budgets and administrative positions have increased faster than student enrollment and classroom teacher positions. The legislature should require that 65% of school spending be dedicated to the classroom. We must focus education resources on the classroom instruction of our children.

5. Legislators should put tax cuts before their own pension increases

Legislators found the votes to increase their own pensions in the last legislative session, but after two special sessions could not find the votes to reduce your property taxes or lower the appraisal cap. We should focus first on cutting taxes before we increase legislatorÂ’s benefits.

6. We are the majority party and we should govern as such

I have called for an end to the so called “blocker bill” in the Senate. For years, this Senate tradition helped ensure civility in the upper house, but recently Democrats have used the practice to block meaningful legislation from being approved. We should end the practice of requiring 2/3 of the Senate to agree before a measure can be considered in the Senate.

I live on the opposite end of Harris County, in a different senatorial district -- but as the GOP Precinct Chair for Precinct 333, I would also like to offer my endorsement of Dan Patrick for Texas Senate District 7.

And speaking of my position as precinct chair, I'll be filing for reelection to that position on Monday afternoon.

Posted by: Greg at 06:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

Recent days have seen a couple of new twists in Texas politics. One involves the plans of a state officeholder and her lust for higher office at any cost, while the other relates to the DonQuixote campaign of a good conservative in the 22nd Congresional District.

Let's start with Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn [YOUR LAST NAME HERE], our comptroller and mother of former White House spokesman Scott McClellan. This long-time Austin Dem turned RINO announced for governor months ago -- but rumor has it that when she files on Monday it won't be as a Republican. Instead, it is possible that she will be filing as an independent. Strayhorn and her staff are pointedly NOT denying rumors to this effect.

Strayhorn spokesman Mark Sanders would not answer direct questions about whether Strayhorn will file Monday in the Republican primary or as an independent.

"Carole Keeton Strayhorn is a candidate for governor. She is a Republican. She will be filing for that office on Monday," Sanders said.

If that happens, next fall we will see a race for governor that includes Gov. Rick Perry as the GOP nominee, Kinky Friedman and Strayhorn running as independents, a Democrat nominee (former Congressman Chris Bell?) and the Libertarian candidate. It would not be surprising to see the winner take office with under 40% of the vote -- and the Democrat candidate finish behind at least one of the independent candidates.

And then there is the announcement of another candidate to run against Tom Delay for Congress. This one sounds like someone I could support if the seat were open or held by a Democrat, but not when he is challenging one of the top leaders of the GOP.

A 50-year-old attorney from Sugar Land has filed to run against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay for the 22nd District in the Republican primary in March.

Thomas A. Campbell, who specializes in environmental law, is the third Republican challenger to take on DeLay, who has held the post since 1985.

Campbell paid the filing fee of $3,125 to the Texas Republican Party in Austin on Wednesday and entered his name in the race.

"We need to return some decency and civility to the way we conduct the public's business," Campbell said.

Campbell said he found it has become increasingly difficult for him to vote for DeLay, who was indicted in September and October on charges related to campaign finances. DeLay has since stepped down as House majority leader.

"I wish I had a choice," Campbell said. "And what I am trying to do is provide Republicans who are conservative a choice, an alternative."

Campbell served as general counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

***

Campbell, who has never held elected office, said he knows taking on an entrenched incumbent in a race with two other challengers will be difficult.

"It is going to be a hard fight, but it is a good fight and it is one we can win," he said.

He is a partner in the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and said he will take a leave of absence from his job while he's campaigning.

Campbell said he would work toward reducing government bureaucracy as well as regulatory burdens on small businesses.

Campbell, who received his law degree from Baylor University, has been married for 28 years. He and his wife, Shauri, have five children and are adopting another.

The problem with this challenge is that it comes way too late, and at a time when the party needs to rally around a leader who is under partisan attack by an unethical prosecutor and is targetted by the national Democrats, who are bringing in lots of out of state money to influence the results in our congressional district. I'll concede casting a protest vote against DeLay in 2004 out of concern over the ethics charges. However, I have to stand with Fort bend County GOP Chairman Eric Thode on this one.

Fort Bend County Republican Party Chairman Eric Thode described Campbell as a credible candidate but one with low name recognition taking on a popular incumbent.

"He (DeLay) has represented us well, and I am confident he will be re-elected in the primary," Thode said Wednesday.

Thode said Campbell is not well-known among people active in the local GOP parties.

"He has no viable group of supporters," Thode said.

It's sad that Campbell has gotten into this race in a way that makes it impossible to take his candidacy seriously. But then again, if the seat does open up between now and 2008, perhaps Tom Campbell will have gained the name-recognition and respect needed to mount a real campaign. And, as Chris Elam over at Safety For Dummies points out, he could be the ideal"safety net" candidate in the event that Ton Delay is convicted or withdraws from the race.

Posted by: Greg at 04:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

The Left and the media (two ways of saying the same thing) demanded an investigation when someone legally leaked the name of Joe Wilson's non-covert CIA spouse. The result was a witch hunt which resulted in only a single indictment -- and that raising the issue of perjury rather than wrongdoing in making public Valerie Plame's role in selecting her husband for a trip to Nigeria.

So should it be any surprise that the leaking of truly sensitive national security information would be investigated?

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into recent disclosures about a controversial domestic eavesdropping program that was secretly authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials said yesterday.

Justice prosecutors will focus their examination on who may have unlawfully disclosed classified information about the program to the New York Times, which reported two weeks ago that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens and residents without court-approved warrants, officials said.

The Justice Department's decision to reveal the opening of a criminal investigation is rare, particularly given the highly classified nature of the probe. Deputy White House press secretary Trent Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Tex., yesterday that Justice "undertook this action on its own" and that Bush had only learned about it from senior staff earlier in the day.

But Duffy reiterated earlier statements by Bush, who had sharply condemned the disclosure of the NSA program and argued that it seriously damaged national security.

"The fact is that al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on Page One, and when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy said, reading from prepared remarks. "You don't need to be Sun Tzu to understand that," he added, referring to the ancient Chinese general who wrote "The Art of War."

Leak investigations generally begin with a referral to the Justice Department by the agency in question -- in this case the NSA -- which prompts a preliminary inquiry by prosecutors to determine whether a crime has been committed. The opening of a criminal investigation signals that prosecutors believe that laws barring disclosure of classified information by government officials were broken. It is likely to be a full-blown probe involving FBI agents and Justice investigators.

Now that seems perfectly reasonable -- especially given the impact of the leak on national security. Who could possibly object?

The American Civil Liberties Union Friday criticized a new Justice Department leak probe.

The Justice Department announced earlier Friday that it was launching an investigation into the disclosure of a secret National Security Agency domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush without specific legal or congressional authorization.

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the ACLU has called for the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether Bush violated federal wiretapping laws by authorizing illegal surveillance of domestic targets.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistle-blowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law.

"To avoid further charges of cronyism, Attorney General Gonzales should call off the investigation," Romero said. "Better yet, Mr. Gonzales ought to fulfill his own oath of office and appoint a special counsel to determine whether federal laws were violated."

Mr. Romero, please quit giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and start giving a damn about the safety and seurity of American citizens during time of war. Attorney General Gonzales is fulfilling his oath of office by conducucting an investigation of the breaking of federal laws -- specifically those which forbid the disclosure of classified information related to national security to unauthorized individuals. The actions of the administration are legal and differ not one bit from activities conducted by every administration since at least Jimmy Carter, based upon the president's constitutional role as commander in chief.

UPDATE: One of the many fine pieces on the net defending the NSA program.

MORE AT Stop the ACLU, California Conservative, Crazy Politicos, Is It Just Me?, Conservative Dialysis, The Museum of Left-Wing Lunacy, ReidBlog

Posted by: Greg at 04:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 735 words, total size 6 kb.

Massachusets Congressman Barney Frank (D - East Sodom & Gomorrah) has two words for those who want to let the people speak on the issue of redefining marriage as anything other than one man and one woman -- shut up.

That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from his comments regarding those seeking to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot to overturn the dictatorial misinterpretation of the Massachusetts Constitution (written by, among others, John Adams) by the state's highest court.

Massachusetss could face an "angry, divisive" fight if a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage reaches the 2008 state ballot, Rep. Barney Frank says.

The congressman blamed backers of the initiative petition for trying to provoke a new fight despite a lack of controversy over same-sex marriage.

"Basically, they're the disturbers of the civic peace," the Democrat said in a wide-ranging Associated Press interview Thursday. "We now have social peace in Massachusetts. They're the ones who want to stir it up ... This is a non-issue in Massachusetts."

***

"I think by 2008, people will say, 'Do we really need to have an angry, divisive debate over a non-issue,'" Frank said. "The question for the 50 legislators is: Do they want to make this a front-page issue again, leading the TV news?"

But Barney, don't you realize that everywhere in the United States wehre the voters have been given a say on the matter they have supported the traditional definition over the liberal social engineering of renegade judges and homosexual activists? If there is division being sown on this issue, it is by those of you who are seeking to bring about change of a fundamental social institution -- especially when you engage in name-calling against those who are seeking to peacefully use the democratic process to make their voices heard.

And though you claim this to be a non-issue, consider the results of the petition drive seeking to put the amendment on the ballot.

The Massachusetts Family Institute said the 124,000 certified signatures it gathered for the petition, nearly double the number required, was a sign of strong public support for outlawing same-sex marriage.

"All they want is an opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage," said the group's president, Kris Mineau. "Now that the people have spoken, the good congressman has decided this is a divisive issue."

But then again, Barney Frank is one of those whose party has gone from being the voice of the common man to one that seeks to frustrate the will of the people by using the courts to implement policies that are rejected by the American people at large.

Posted by: Greg at 04:24 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm curious what you guys think of this bit of political theorizing from Newsday columnist James Pinkerton.

We like to think that we have made progress in the four centuries since, especially here in the United States. But we're up against a basic reality: As populations grow denser, and as technology improves, there's a natural need for more regulation to keep people's elbows, and machines, from banging into each other.

That's the reason why, for example, Wyoming is a more libertarian place than New York City. Out in the West, where miles might separate people, you can pretty much do what you want. But, if millions are going to live in close proximity to one another, then lots of red tape is going to thread itself around each resident, governing not only the obvious concerns, such as weapons and pollution, but matters such as noise abatement and cigarette smoking.

Do you people agree? I don't think it has to be that way. Does society necessarily become less free the larger it grows?

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, it isn't like his name is Tom DeLay or anything like that. He is just one more corrupt cog in the on-going series of criminal activities by Democratic pols.

Former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance walked into a spartan community center Wednesday night a felon who admitted diverting public money to his law firm, family and church.

But the more than 100 people who greeted him there saw him as nothing less than a civil rights hero who has been unjustly sentenced to four years in federal prison.

The event was a fund-raiser to help Ballance pay his legal bills. The former congressman said he had paid all fines and restitution with his own money. A rally held two weeks ago in Murfreesboro drew about 300 people.

The sponsors of Wednesday's tribute called it a "People's Freedom Rally," and it took on the feel of a church service with gospel songs and Bible quotations such as, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Could you imagine the outrage if such a rally/fundraiser were held on behalf of Tom DeLay BEFORE his conviction, much less after it?

Oh, and what was ithe crime of which he was found guilty? Stealing from a charity to enrich himself and his family.

Ballance, 63, is scheduled to begin his sentence Friday at a federal prison in Butner for steering roughly $100,000 in public money from an anti-drug program he founded to his law firm, church and relatives.

The money was among $2.3 million Ballance had directed to the John A. Hyman Memorial Youth Foundation from 1994 to 2003 while he served as a state lawmaker. But the nonprofit foundation failed to file federal tax returns and the required state financial reports. When that became public nearly three years ago, it triggered a state audit that turned up more than $325,000 in questionable spending.

On Nov. 9, 2004, Ballance pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy related to funneling $15,500 to his law firm, $20,000 to his son, Garey Ballance, to buy a Lincoln Navigator, and $5,000 to his daughter for computer services that she did not perform.

Garey Ballance, a state District Court judge, admitted evading taxes on the $20,000, and he received nine months in prison. He also is to report to Butner; the conviction cost him his judicial post.

But we shouldn't be surprised that Ballance would participate in such a fundraiser. After all, he has this to say about his upcoming sentencing.

"I've not done anything that deserves four years in prison," Ballance said.

If that is the case, then why did you plead guilty? Why didn't you stand up and argue that your actions were justified and trust a jury of your peers to bring back a not guilty verdict?

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will take up the DeLay case in an expedited fashion. It has given Travis County prosecutor prostitutor Ronnie Earle a week to file briefs supporting a continued denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial in the prosecution persecution of Congressman Tom DeLay.

The state's highest criminal court has agreed to hear Tom DeLay's latest request for a quick resolution to money laundering charges that forced him to give up his leadership post in the U.S. House, his spokesman said Tuesday.

The all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that both sides have a week to submit arguments, DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said in an e-mail. DeLay's attorneys asked the court either to dismiss money laundering charges or to order a lower court to try him immediately.

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin took the case to the criminal appeals court Friday, one day after the 3rd Court of Appeals denied his request that the case be sent back to the trial court or expedited through the appeals process.

DeGuerin and a spokesman for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle did not return phone calls seeking comment Tuesday night.

DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land, was forced to step aside as House majority leader after he was indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges in September.

He denies wrongdoing and has been pressing for a quick resolution to his case so he can regain his post before his colleagues call for new leadership elections. His case was put on hold, however, when prosecutors appealed a judge's partial dismissal of the criminal charges.

Even if the case is handled in an expedited fashion by the Court of Criminal Appeals, that does not guarantee a quick trial. Judge pat Priest has refused to rule on other pending motions until this appeal is complete, meaning that there will be at least one more round of appeals before a trial can start. Among the pending motions is a DeLay request for dismissal of all remaining counts based upon Ronnie Earle's prosecutorial misconduct in disclosing confidential grand jury information, tampering with the deliberations of a grand jury and grand jury shopping.

If the proceedings are allowed to drag on in this manner, it is likely that Earle will accomplish his goal of permanently removing DeLay from his leadership position, even if he is unable to get a conviction.

PREVIOUS POSTS:
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech
DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Posted by: Greg at 04:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 5 kb.

Looks like there was massive vote fraud down in McAllen, Texas during a recent mayoral election -- with over 90% of the mail-in ballots cast having been done so fraudulently.

They charm their way into the homes of elderly Hispanics and other vulnerable souls along the Texas-Mexico border. They help them with ordinary tasks, picking up their groceries or taking them to the doctor.

Then suddenly, these intruders steal a cherished thing from their victims: Their vote.

The indictment Wednesday of nine people in an alleged voter fraud scheme in McAllen opened a window into the hidden world of politiqueras, the paid political activists whose controversial ways are under scrutiny in South Texas.

Hidalgo County authorities allege that politiqueras bought and sold votes before the May 7 mayoral race in McAllen. The indictment charges nine people with electoral violations. They include Elvira Rios and her sister, Alicia Liscano Molina, two politiqueras known for their activism in the Rio Grande Valley.

"Our investigation revealed these politiqueras were preying on elderly voters," said Texas Ranger Israel Pacheco, who headed the inquiry.

After befriending their victims, the political activists allegedly took their mail-in ballots and made sure that the names of the activists' favorite candidates were checked off before sending them in, authorities say.

"They would go to them under the pretext of assisting them in voting. But the investigation showed none of them (the victims) knew who they voted for; the politiqueras took off with the ballots," Pacheco said.

"Unfortunately, the politiqueras crossed over the line," said Nedra Kinerk, president of Futuro McAllen, a citizens group that examined 902 of the 961 mail-in ballots in the May 7 election. "From what I saw of the mail-in ballots, they were full of illegal assistance."

About 40 percent of the applications for mail-in ballots were received at City Hall on the same day, indicating they likely were mailed in batches, Kinerk said.

"We even had three dead people apply for ballots, and sign their names. And we had applications for one voter from three different politiqueras," she said.

Almost all the political workers who allegedly took part in the scheme were Hispanic women who gained the trust of their victims by helping them with such tasks as making doctor's appointments or applying for government benefits, officials said.

Now the interesting thing is that nopolitical parties are mentioned anywhere in the article on this massive vote fraud. Now I realize that most municipal elections in Texas are non-partisan, but those invlved are usually closely affiliated with one of the major parties and are generally identified as auch in news stories. That the Chronicle fails to do so here leads me to draw a conclusion as to the party of those involved. -- and given voting patterns in the Valley, they would not be Republicans.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Lawyers for Congressman Tom DeLay have filed a motion with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest criminal appelate court) seeking either an immediate trial on the charges brought against him or the dismissal of all charges.

In a last-ditch effort to secure a speedy trial, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's attorneys today asked the state's highest criminal court to dismiss charges against him or order a lower court to try him immediately.

The money laundering and conspiracy case against the Republican congressman has been on hold while prosecutors appeal a judge's dismissal of some of the charges.

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin took the case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals a day after a lower appeals court denied his request that the case be sent back to the trial court or expedited through the appeals process.

DeLay has been pressing for a quick resolution to his case so he can regain his post as majority leader before his colleagues call for new leadership elections next month.

The congressman is accused of illegally funneling corporate campaign contributions to GOP candidates for the state Legislature. Under Republican House rules, he was forced to step down when he was indicted in September.

DeGuerin said he asked the criminal appeals court for an expedited ruling, which he speculated could come as early as Tuesday.

Good luck, Congressman. Here's hoping you get a belated Christmas present from teh court -- your rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Texas.

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

You have to love the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party's House Negroes from the Congressional Black Caucus. They bitched and moaned about the allegedly unconscionable length of time it took FEMA to respond to Hurricane Katrina (local resources are to respond for the first 72 hours), but they won't be spending any of the money they raised to help with the recovery for at least another month or two.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which slammed the Bush administration for its allegedly slow and racially insensitive response to Hurricane Katrina, has yet to spend any of the estimated $400,000 that it raised for the victims of the Aug. 29 storm.

"We are collecting all the way up through the very end of the year and then our board has set aside a committee who is going to administer the funds," Patty Rice, spokeswoman for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday. The Foundation is an offshoot of the Congressional Black Caucus and was founded in 1976.

In other words, no money is going out until sometime in January or February -- a shocking FIVE MONTHS after Hurrican Katrina hit the city.

But one interesting detail that might be overlooked is the early claims oabout the amount raised by the CBC.

The CBCF then launched its own relief fund on Sept. 21, with a stated goal of raising $1 million to help Gulf Coast residents rebuild their lives. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the CBCF claimed immediate success, telling reporters on Sept. 21 that it had already received $700,000 in corporate pledges.

But on Wednesday, exactly three months after the news conference launching the CBCF relief fund, Rice told Cybercast News Service that the Foundation has actually raised "somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 to $400,000." She added that the distribution of the money would not begin until January or February of 2006 at the earliest.

So what happened to the rest of the money, folks? Was it misappropriated by the CBC for political chicanery? Or are we simply looking at a situation where The CBC Lied And People Died? Neither would surprise me -- they did the bidding of their DNC white masters by shucking and jiving for the television cameras, spinning the disaster as an example of Bush Administration racism.

I think we all know what is going on here. They will eventually get around to giving the money to a few politically connected black firms, which will then donate it all back to Black Caucus members. Call it the typical graft engaged in by the Democrats -- the kind that rarely gets prosecuted and gets overlooked by the MSM.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, LaShawn Barber, Old Controller, Kokonut Pundits, Say What Now?, Independent Conservative, Preaching Politics, Lifelike Pundits, Blogs for Bush, Psycmeistr's Ice Palace, Common Sense and Wonder, Clear and Present, Mis-Informed Comment, The Loft

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess that the guarantees of the US and Texas Constitutions regarding the right to a speedy trial are null and void if you are a Republican politician being prosecuted persecuted by Travis County prosecutor prostitutor Ronnie Earle.

A state appeals court has rejected motions filed by U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay to help him get a speedy trial, an essential step in the Sugar Land Republican's efforts to regain his congressional leadership post.

In an order made public today, the intermediate appeals court rejected DeLay's bid to be tried on a money laundering charge while prosecutors appeal the dismissal of a related charge accusing DeLay of violating the election code.

DeLay's attorneys said they would take the matter to the state's highest criminal appeals court.

The panel of two Democrats and one Republican also overruled a motion to expedite the appeal by shortening the time for filing briefs from the customary 20 days per side to five days.

DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said DeLay will seek emergency relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

``We're not through. We're going to the top,'' said DeGuerin.

The reality is that the dismissed charge is fatally flawed in that the statute allegedly violated did not go ino effect until after the alleged firnancial transaction -- thereby making the charge a violation of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto application of the law. In addition, the effects of delaying the trial impact not just Tom DeLay, but also the voters of his district (this delay means the trial will not be complete until after the March primary, and possibly not until after the November election) and the House GOP caucus (GOP caucus rules -- but not Democrat rules -- require that an indicted member relinquish leadership roles until after acquittal). As a matter of justice, the trial needs to begin immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 03:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

In an unwarranted move to delay consideration on an important legal issue, Judge Pat Priest yesterday cancelled a December 27 hearing at which he was to have considered prosecutorial misconduct charges against Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle in seeking a second indictment agaisnt Congressman Tom DeLay.

A state judge said Saturday he will not immediately consider separating two criminal charges against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to allow an early trial, another blow to the former House majority leader's hopes of regaining his post.

Earlier this month, Judge Pat Priest dismissed a conspiracy charge against DeLay but refused to throw out more serious allegations of money laundering. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle served notice Monday that he intends to ask an appeals court to reinstate the conspiracy charge.

DeLay's attorneys had hoped Priest would separate the charges in an effort to move forward on the money-laundering charge while waiting for the appeals court decision.

DeLay, who denies wrongdoing, has been pressing for a quick resolution to his case so he can regain the majority leader's position before his GOP colleagues reconvene in late January and call for new leadership elections.

Priest rejected the defense bid on Saturday, saying he would not act until after the state's 3rd Court of Appeals rules. Priest also canceled a Dec. 27 hearing at which he was expected to consider the defense team's allegations of misconduct against prosecutors who brought the charges.

Now I don't find Priest's decision not to sever the charges to be unreasonable, despite the potential for violating DeLay's right to a speedy trial. As he notes in his ruling, appeals courts are supposed to expedite decisions in cases regarding dismissals of indictments. However, his failure to consider the misconduct allegations raises the specter of a second dismissal of charges and a second appeal by Earle -- which would further slow the process in a manner that makes a mockery of DeLay's right to a speedy trial.

DeLay's two co-defendants in the alleged scheme to violate a ban on corporate contributions to Texas candidates are not seeking a speedy trial. Priest said that although DeLay may be entitled to sever the charges, he thinks that "to go to trial on his case alone would require at least two trials where otherwise one would suffice for all three defendants."

"Out of considerations of judicial economy, I have determined to let my decision concerning a severance of counts wait until after the Third Court of Appeals of Texas, sitting at Austin, has made its ruling," Priest wrote.

Priest noted that state law directs the appeals court to give precedence to this sort of appeal, and he said he is "confident the court will act with all reasonable dispatch."

DeLay, in Washington on Saturday, said the judge's ruling does not mean the case will drag on for months. But even an expedited appeal could take six weeks, said his attorney Dick DeGuerin, of Houston, dimming the congressman's prospects for a January trial.

DeGuerin said he plans to file a motion Monday morning asking the appeals court to dismiss the appeal.

The desire of DeLay's co-defendents not to seek a speedy trial has, from what I can see, no bearing upon the right of DeLay to a speedy trial. Furthermore, the timing of the indictment brought by the partisan hack from Austin was intended to get the trial heard right during the heart of election seaso here in Texas, in an obvious attempt to influence the outcome of DeLay's race and those of other Republican cnadidates/

DeLay said Earle is being driven by a "living hate" and "makes so many mistakes he's actually helping us expedite this process." The congressman commented on the latest legal twist in his case after attending a closed-door meeting in the U.S. Capitol with fellow House Republicans, who were discussing the completion of legislative business.

DeGuerin also said Saturday that he thinks Earle is bringing the appeal solely to postpone the trial.

"I disagree with the judge's ruling, but what I'm most upset about is that the state is being so unscrupulous about how they're doing everything they can to drag this out, make it last as long as possible," he said.

What we have here is a political prosecution brought by the lowest form of vermin infesting the judicial system -- a corrupt prosecutor. Judge Priset should reconsider his cancellation of the December 27 hearing and issue a ruling on the prosecutorial misconduct charge at the earliest opportunity, so that the appeal of that ruling and the earlier dismissal of a charge of violating a non-existant stute can be heard at the same time, vindicting the right of Tom DeLay to a speedy trial.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

If this stands, I suspect I will need to be available on December 27, since the partisan vermin hack running the Travis County Prostitutor's Prosecutor's are seeking to intimidate those who dare to engage in free speech in support of Tom DeLay.

Could the Travis County D.A. possibly be using his office to persecute his political opponents? Perish the thought!

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has subpoenaed two officials at the Free Enterprise Fund in connection with ads the conservative group has run criticizing him for his indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The ads attacked Earle, who has a history of indicting his political enemies in both parties, comparing him to an attack dog.

The draft subpoena served to the organization demands that FEF communications director Todd Schorle and executive director O’Brien Murray testify in Texas at DeLay’s change of venue hearing on Dec. 27 — the Tuesday after Christmas.

In the subpoena, Earle also demands "any and all documentation regarding the advertisements that have been produced or paid for by the Free Enterprise Fund.

Excuse me, but doesn't this smack of an egregious violation of the constitutional rights of Americans ? After all, if criticism of a public official will bring a court order to appear on pain of imprisonment, won't that discourage such speech?

Ronnie Earle needs to be removed, disbarred, and imprisoned for his abuse of office.

UPDATE: The Washington Times reports that there is a particular item that Ronnie Earle wants to get his hands on.

What Mr. Earle wants, a source with special knowledge of the request tells this column, is a copy of the organization's donor list, so he can find out who paid for the ads.

The better to go after political opponents with, my dear -- a move clearly reminiscent of past Democrat prosecutors, who tried to shut down the NAACP by demanding lists of members and donors during the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

Posted by: Greg at 09:19 AM | Comments (69) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

From the Kennedy Klan.

AS an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development.

Yeah, like anyplace where you and your fellow wealthy/liberal friends might have to ever see it or think about it.

Posted by: Greg at 11:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't wait to see this Democrat cockroach exterminated by the DeLay's team.

Rep. Tom DeLay's attorneys filed a subpoena Thursday seeking the testimony of grand jurors, including those who indicted the former House majority leader and those who rejected charges.

DeLay's legal team wants to prove prosecutorial misconduct by District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who they say "shopped around" the campaign finance case against DeLay to three different grand juries before finding one that would indict DeLay on money laundering and conspiracy charges.

State law prohibits prosecutors from attending grand jury deliberations, but the defense alleges that Earle unlawfully participated in the second grand jury's deliberations and tried to force those grand jurors to indict DeLay. Earle denies the allegations.

Grand jury testimony is secret and Earle does not have to release transcripts unless he's ordered to by a court, so the defense has asked Senior Judge Pat Priest to allow the grand jurors to testify.

DeLay's legal team points to a flurry of grand jury activity beginning with his initial indictment Sept. 28 on a charge of conspiring to violate state campaign finance laws in 2002.

A second grand jury considered the case after questions were raised about whether the appropriate law was used to indict DeLay. That panel did not indict.

Days later, a third grand jury indicted DeLay on more serious money laundering and conspiracy charges. That grand jury is still seated and is under oath not to discuss their proceedings.

Earle has said he went to the third grand jury after finding new evidence, which he didn't specify. In court documents, Earle maintains that the prosecutorial misconduct allegation is not a sufficient reason to violate grand jury secrecy.

Delay lawyer Dick DeGuerin said he would be prepared to argue the misconduct case at a Dec. 27 pretrial hearing with or without grand jury testimony.

"I don't think it's make or break, but it's very, very important," DeGuerin said. "We have other outside evidence to present."

My personal opinion is that Ronnie Earle will be very lucky if he manages to stay out of jail, much less retain his law license, after the amount of unethical and potentially illegal conduct he has engaged in as part of this politically-motivated vendetta.

Posted by: Greg at 05:06 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

Can you believe Harry Reid's audacity in making this statement?

Democratic leaders sternly criticized President Bush yesterday for saying former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of felonious campaign finance abuses, suggesting his comments virtually amounted to jury tampering before DeLay stands trial.

"The president of the United States said a jury does not need to assemble, that Tom DeLay is innocent," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "To have someone of his stature, the president of the United States, prejudge a case is something I've never seen before."

Now hold on just a minute. Democrats have universally been painting DeLay as guilty ever since the original indictment (trying to engage in an ex post facto application of the law) was handed down. They see no need for a jury to assemble to determine Tom DeLay's guilt. Yet when the president expresses his confidence in the innocence of a long-time friend and supporter, they go ballistic!

Consider this quote from Screamin' Howeird Dean:

Tom DeLay is neither the beginning nor the end of the Washington Republicans' ethical problems. America can do better than leaders who use their power to promote their own personal interests instead of the interests of the American people who elected them.

Clearly this is a statement that DeLay is guilty.

Similarly, what about this one -- predating he indictment by several months -- in which Dean explicitly convicts DeLay without there even being a charge levelled.

“Tom DeLay is corrupt. No question about it,” Dean said Friday. “This is a guy who shouldn’t be in Congress and maybe ought to be serving in jail.”

The House ethics committee is investigating whether DeLay violated congressional rules by taking foreign trips paid for by lobbyists. The Texas Republican has not been charged with a crime, but Dean said he would not apologize for saying earlier this month that DeLay “ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.”

Remember, please, that the jail sentence comment came in the same interview in which Dean expressed doubt about the guilt of Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks.

You know, Hyppocritical harry Reid was silent about those statements. Could it be that he believes in the standard of "guilty until proven innocent"? Or even "guilty, and we don't give a damn if he's innocent"? Certainly he sees noting in such statements that might harm the man's right to a fair trial.

But heaven forbid that anyone express an opinion that Tom Delay is innocent -- that's jury tampering!

Posted by: Greg at 05:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

Terrorists supporting racial discrimination by government agencies disrupted a meeting intended to bring a government agency into compliance with a court order and Michigan law.

Following a raucous, table-tumbling protest involving a couple of hundred impassioned Detroit area students, a state elections panel bucked an appellate court order Wednesday and failed again to place an affirmative action ban proposal on next year's ballot.

The Board of State Canvassers voted 2-1, with one member not voting, to certify the so-called Michigan Civil Rights Initiative for the November 2006 ballot. It takes three votes to certify.

The meeting was disrupted by an opposition group, By Any Means Necessary, which recruited students from Cody, Cass Tech, Crockett and Mumford high schools in Detroit and Oak Park High School to swarm the meeting and keep the board from voting.

I want to hear no more comments from so-called civil rights activists about disenfranchisement. This bunch is pursuing an agenda to disenfranchise the entire state of Michigan by preventing the people from ever getting a chance to vote on an amendment that meets all legal requirements to appear on the ballot.

It is time for the governor to call out the National Guard and for the appellate court to hold in contempt the members of the Board of State Canvassers thwarting the will of the people and violating the order to certify the MCRI.

UPDATE: Much greater detail from Discriminations and Chetley Zarko.

OTHER VOICES: GOPBloggers, What If?, Politics [Michigan] and Discriminations. The last quotes Thomas Bray of the Detroit News.

A string of recent debates on the issue also suggests the difficulty that supporters of affirmative action are having in trying to mount a reasoned defense of such policies. In a recent debate with Ward Connerly, who led the successful California fight to end preferences, the dean of Wayne State University’s law school asserted that race-based admissions is a “civil right.” That left even the veteran Connerly slack-jawed with wonder, ignoring as it did the language of the Constitution and a century of efforts to define civil rights as equality – not inequality -- before the law.

Had a mob of student conservatives invaded a meeting of state officials, it would have been denounced as fascist. The fascism of the left tends to be excused, even by those who know better, as a case of overwrought idealism. But voters may not be so easily fooled.

Indeed. But let's remembr that Mussolini was primarily a man of the Left, and that his German ally was the head of the National SOCIALIST Party -- so it is most appropriate to call the BAMN rioters "fascists".

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 4 kb.

We donÂ’t hear much about the federal marriage amendment these days. Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Brookman wants to ascribe that to insincerity and political opportunism.

Think back a little more than a year ago, to the political campaigns of 2004. One of the hottest issues in presidential debates and congressional campaigns was the threat to traditional marriage posed by gay people seeking the right to wed.

At the time, President Bush and others were warning that the threat could be averted only by the most serious step available under our political system, amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage outright.

You may also remember how heated and emotional some of the rhetoric became. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and probably the most influential of conservative religious leaders, reflected the tone quite well in his April 2004 newsletter.

"Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself" unless the U.S.

Constitution is amended, Dobson wrote, charging that for more than 40 years, gay Americans have pursued a master plan "that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family."

That kind of rhetoric had its desired effect, driving conservative voters to the polls in large numbers, helping to re-elect President Bush and increasing Republican representation in Congress and state legislatures.

But a year later, it seems pertinent to ask: Have you heard or read a single word about a federal gay-marriage amendment since the election?

No, you have not, because this supposedly all-important issue has vanished from the political landscape. Judging from the available evidence, this dire threat to marriage and family, this looming peril to the very core of American society, has simply disappeared as a concern. Certainly, nobody's talking about it or trying to do anything about it any longer.

Now this is partially true. There just is not a lot being done about the federal amendment. The reason is simple – the votes in Congress simply are not there to get the thing sent on to the states.

That does not mean nothing is happening.

Just last month, Texas passed an amendment banning gay marriage. Several states have placed marriage amendments on their ballots for different dates over the next year. In addition, petition drives and legislative action to place them on the ballot in other states are also underway. In other words, the action is currently being found at the state level, since there is little likelihood of one passing at the federal level now.

So while it is possible to claim that the issue of gay marriage was simply a wedge issue in 2004, it is more accurate to see it as having been moved from one battlefield to another for the time being. But he is right on one matter – the issue will be raised in the 2006 elections.

Not as a wedge issue insincerely used to garner votes, but because more and more states are placing traditional marriage in their state constitutions because the will of the people is being ignored on the federal level.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

I canÂ’t help but be amused by Richard CohenÂ’s criticism of Hillary! for supporting a ban on flag-burning.

The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred. It protects our most cherished rights -- religion, speech, press and assembly -- and while I sometimes turn viscerally angry when I see the flag despoiled, my emotions are akin to what I feel when neo-Nazis march. Repugnant or not, popular or not, it is all political speech. Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around -- either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her.

Does anyone know if Cohen is so absolutist on freedom of political speech with regard to McCain-Feingold? Or does he privilege flag-burning and Nazi marches over citizen participation in the democratic process?

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

As if charging Tom DeLay with a crime that didn't exist and seeking to prevent a speedy trial were not prosecutorial misconduct enough, now Ronnie Earle is on a fishing expedition based upon reimbursed plane flights and a soured business partnership.

A Texas prosecutor has issued subpoenas for bank records and other information of a defense contractor involved in the bribery case of a California congressman as part of the investigation of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle issued subpoenas late Monday afternoon for California businessmen Brent Wilkes and Max Gelwix, records of Perfect Wave Technologies LLC, Wilkes Corp. and ADCS Inc. in connection with a contribution to a fundraising committee at the center of the investigation that led to DeLay's indictment on money laundering charges.

Perfect Wave contributed $15,000 in September 20, 2002 to Texans for a Republican Majority, a fundraising committee founded by DeLay, R-Texas.

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned in late November after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to companies.

On Tuesday, Earle subpoenaed written testimony DeLay and two others gave in a 1994 lawsuit brought by DeLay's former pest control business partner. Ex-partner Robert Blankenship alleged in the suit that he was unjustly cut out of the business by DeLay and another man. The lawsuit ended in a confidential settlement in 1995.

DeLay gave differing stories about whether he was an officer of Albo Pest Control Co. during his deposition and when he filed a financial disclosure document with the House.

"He can subpoena all he wants, there's nothing there," said DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin. "I think he's trying to dig himself out of a hole. We're not concerned about it."

The subpoenas also seek correspondence and internal accounting records.

Wilkes, head of Wilkes Corp., is one of four unnamed coconspirators listed in Cunningham's plea agreement, Wilkes' attorney, Michael Lipman of San Diego, has said. Lipman did not immediately return calls for comment.

Defense contractor ADCS and Perfect Wave Technologies are subsidiaries of Wilkes Corp.

Gelwix was listed in federal campaign records last year as president and CEO of Perfect Wave Technologies. A message left at his office was not immediately returned.

Wilkes' company also hired Alexander Strategies, a consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife Christine. His private jet company, Group W Transportation, provided flights to DeLay three times. DeLay reimbursed Group W as required, records show.

The abuse of the office of prosecutor to destroy a political opponent is a serious act of misconduct -- and Ronnie Earle has a long history of doing so. When will this creep be disbarred for his unethical conduct.

MUCH BETTER ANALYSIS from Chris Elam, author of Fort Bend County's top poli-blog, Safety for Dummies. He also takes a look at Tom DeLay's GOP primary "competition". {snort! giggle! guffaw!}

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.

You just have to ask that question when you read this article from Seattle.

It seems that people are questioning the effectiveness and procedures of the Seattle Office for Civil Rights because so few claims are resulting in the issuance of findings of discrimination.

The city agency charged with enforcing civil rights takes months to investigate a case. And when the inquiry by the office is over, chances are that not much will come of it.

Last year, the office discovered discrimination in about 1 percent of more than 200 complaints it handled. Some critics say that isn't impressive for an office that has a $1.8 million budget and 22 full-time employees, including six investigators.
The lack of actions has led to nothing but frustration for people like Don Ross, a psychoanalyst, who filed a complaint with the office two years ago. His son, Eli, then 14, was in an Albertsons store in Magnolia when an employee ordered him out.

The employee and co-workers confused the teenager, who is Latino, with another young man, also Latino, who had stolen wine from the supermarket. The employees weren't Hispanic. Don Ross says it was clearly discrimination. The store said it was a simple case of mistaken identity.

He complained to the civil rights office. Two years and two appeals later, Don Ross and his son have yet to get a ruling that the store discriminated.

But wait – I thought that is how it is supposed to work. There is supposed to be an investigation to determine IF there was discrimination, not an investigation UNTIL there is a finding of discrimination. Many times an incident involves no discrimination, and so there should be no finding of discrimination. There should not be an endless round of investigation and appeals until the “right” result is reached.

But that isn’t how the minds of the Left work. Instead, they want a process that tilts towards the accuser. They want the Seattle human Rights Commission to be able to reverse a decision of the Office of Civil Rights, not simply send a case back for further investigation.

It's rare that the commission referred cases back to the civil rights office. Last year, 25 appeals were filed. Only one or two were sent back to the civil rights office.

John Denooyer served on the Human Rights Commission for four years. His term ended in July.

"It does seem that most of the cases that made it to the appeals process were pretty weak," Denooyer said. "Indeed, of the half-dozen or so cases I sat in on, I recall only one we sent back to (the civil rights office) for review."

But commission member Ahoua Kone said the group plans to meet with the City Council about expanding its powers.

"Some of us wonder if we should be able to reverse a decision if it feels like justice wasn't done in the decision that was reached by the investigators," Kone said.

So rather than allow those most familiar with the case to make a final determination, they want a political body to decide instead. That is a recipe for corruption and favoritism.

But they have to do something – after all, the agency spends $1.8 million in taxpayer funds and employs 22 people. If there aren’t more findings of discrimination, people might start questioning the necessity of the agency. What's more, they might start questioning the rhetoric of victimhood that liberals have foisted on the American people for decades.

And we can't have that, can we?

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

You just have to ask that question when you read this article from Seattle.

It seems that people are questioning the effectiveness and procedures of the Seattle Office for Civil Rights because so few claims are resulting in the issuance of findings of discrimination.

The city agency charged with enforcing civil rights takes months to investigate a case. And when the inquiry by the office is over, chances are that not much will come of it.

Last year, the office discovered discrimination in about 1 percent of more than 200 complaints it handled. Some critics say that isn't impressive for an office that has a $1.8 million budget and 22 full-time employees, including six investigators.
The lack of actions has led to nothing but frustration for people like Don Ross, a psychoanalyst, who filed a complaint with the office two years ago. His son, Eli, then 14, was in an Albertsons store in Magnolia when an employee ordered him out.

The employee and co-workers confused the teenager, who is Latino, with another young man, also Latino, who had stolen wine from the supermarket. The employees weren't Hispanic. Don Ross says it was clearly discrimination. The store said it was a simple case of mistaken identity.

He complained to the civil rights office. Two years and two appeals later, Don Ross and his son have yet to get a ruling that the store discriminated.

But wait – I thought that is how it is supposed to work. There is supposed to be an investigation to determine IF there was discrimination, not an investigation UNTIL there is a finding of discrimination. Many times an incident involves no discrimination, and so there should be no finding of discrimination. There should not be an endless round of investigation and appeals until the “right” result is reached.

But that isnÂ’t how the minds of the Left work. Instead, they want a process that tilts towards the accuser. They want the Seattle human Rights Commission to be able to reverse a decision of the Office of Civil Rights, not simply send a case back for further investigation.

It's rare that the commission referred cases back to the civil rights office. Last year, 25 appeals were filed. Only one or two were sent back to the civil rights office.

John Denooyer served on the Human Rights Commission for four years. His term ended in July.

"It does seem that most of the cases that made it to the appeals process were pretty weak," Denooyer said. "Indeed, of the half-dozen or so cases I sat in on, I recall only one we sent back to (the civil rights office) for review."

But commission member Ahoua Kone said the group plans to meet with the City Council about expanding its powers.

"Some of us wonder if we should be able to reverse a decision if it feels like justice wasn't done in the decision that was reached by the investigators," Kone said.

So rather than allow those most familiar with the case to make a final determination, they want a political body to decide instead. That is a recipe for corruption and favoritism.

But they have to do something – after all, the agency spends $1.8 million in taxpayer funds and employs 22 people. If there aren’t more findings of discrimination, people might start questioning the necessity of the agency. What's more, they might start questioning the rhetoric of victimhood that liberals have foisted on the American people for decades.

And we can't have that, can we?

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

Ronnie Earle seems intent on dragging this thing out as long as possible, appealing the dismissal of an indictment that his subsequent actions show that even he knew was defective.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle asked a judge Monday to stay all proceedings in the money-laundering case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay while he appeals the dismissal of a related conspiracy charge.

If granted, a stay could hamper DeLay's efforts to get a January trial. An early trial is key to the Sugar Land Republican's hopes to regain his position as House majority leader.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for DeLay, said the "decision to appeal shows that Ronnie Earle is only interested in persecution by prosecution."

"The judge's decision to swiftly dismiss Ronnie Earle's baseless and manufactured indictment last week was the correct decision then, and it will be the correct decision when this hopeless attempt to appeal is ultimately rejected," said Madden.

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said he will oppose the motion to stay. DeGuerin last week asked Senior District Judge Pat Priest to separate the money-laundering charge and schedule a trial in January.

Priest said in an e-mail to reporters Monday night that he will hear the state's motion to stay and DeLay's motion to sever the money-laundering charge on Dec. 27.

Priest on Dec. 5 threw out charges accusing DeLay and two associates of conspiring to violate the state election code, but upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

HereÂ’s hoping that Pat Priest directs Earle to be prepared to proceed with trial at the earliest possible date. Tom DeLay is legally entitled to a speedy trial, not one stalled by a prosecutor who is more interested in headlines and political vendettas than in seeking justice.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Captain Ed and Instapundit point out this bit of absurdity from Salon's Cary Tennis.

At a certain point in the near future, if the current oligarchy cannot be removed via the ballot, direct political action may become an urgent and compelling mission. It may then be necessary for many people in many walks of life to put their bodies on the line. For the moment, however, although pressing and profound questions have arisen about whether the current government is even legitimate, i.e., properly elected, there still remains a chance to remove this government peacefully in the 2008 election. (Or am I living in a dream world?)

I do think this regime's removal is the most urgent matter before the country today. And I do think that at a certain point the achievement of that goal might take precedence over our personal predilections for writing, teaching and the like. We might be called upon to go on general strike, for instance. We might be called upon to set up camp in the streets for weeks or months, to gather and remain in large public squares as the students in Tiananmen Square did, and dare government forces to remove us or to slaughter us in the streets.

This is all terrible and rather fantastic to contemplate. But what assurances have we that it is not all quite plausible? Having discarded the principles that Jefferson & Co. espoused, the current regime seems capable of anything. I know that my imagination is a feverish instrument. But are we not living in feverish times, in times of the unthinkable?

Looks like a serious case of Bush-Hatred Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Are civil liberties attrocities like this something we will see here in the USA in the near future if the radical homosexualists (the gay equivalent of al-Qaeda) have their way? After all, if merely stating an opinion on homosexuality that contradicts the orthodoxy of the Left is going to bring a police response, is it really fair to say that freedom of expression exists in a country?

Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.

During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."

A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.

"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.

"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."

Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.

A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".

So expressing an unacceptable opinion is now a "priority crime" in the UK. I guess that the "rights of Englishmen" aren't waht they used to be.

Telegraph commentator Philip Johnston seems to think that they are not, and lays the blame at the feet of the Blair government, which has been steadily criminalizing the public expression of opinions it finds unfashionable.

Then, an author taking part in a broadcast discussion about gay adoptions was telephoned by a policewoman and informed that her name had been noted following a complaint that she had made a "homophobic" remark on air. Lynette Burrows had offered her opinion that two homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt a boy, which is a view with which you may agree or disagree, but does not warrant a call from the local constabulary.

She was told that, although a crime had not been committed, it was policy to record details of such complaints, so Mrs Burrows is now, presumably, on some sinister register of people who express views that are not considered acceptable. Needless to say, she was flabbergasted to receive such a call. "This is a free country and we are entitled to express opinions on matters of public interest," she said.

But this is no longer true, though it is not the fault of the police. It is the fault of the Government for promoting laws that criminalise opinions judged unfashionable or objectionable, and of Parliament for passing them.

When will the people of Great Britain return to their heritage of liberty that stretches back to the days of the Magna Carta and before, and demand that their fundamental human rights be respected by their government? Or will the toxin of PC censorship be allowed to continue spreading through the free world -- eventually killing the liberties of Americans as well?

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

Debbie Gamblin of the Clarion-Ledger offers her suggestion of what the author of the Declaration of Independence would think of the current state of America and the Crusade Against Islamist Terror.

As to the liberal columnist wondering what forefathers like Thomas Jefferson would think of America today, they would be horrified to think that nine unelected men and women have savaged our Constitution and distressed that the rhetoric being used by the terrorists and the Democrats in this country are virtually the same.

Finally, they would be proud that America has a strong leader in President George W. Bush who does not govern by polls, but by principles and conviction much like those on which America was founded.

Posted by: Greg at 04:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Would you be permitted to leave the store without paying sales tax on your purchases? No -- and the store would be prosecuted if it failed to collect the tax.

Will the gas station deduct all the taxes from your gasoline purchase and permit you to leave without paying the full price on the pump, just because you object> Again, no -- and you would be stopped if you tried to leave the station without paying.

And we won't even get into what would happen if your employer stopped taking out taxes from your paycheck and you refused to pay income taxes.

Why, then, is this allowed to continue?

For Seattle peace activist Bert Sacks, the monthly act of resistance adds up to only 59 cents. Symbolically, however, refusing to pay the "war tax" on his Qwest phone bill represents a pocketbook protest against what he sees as misuse of U.S. military power.

"I object to the U.S. government policy of using famine and epidemic as tools against civilian populations. That's wrong," says the retired engineer, who has fought for a decade to get economic sanctions against Iraq lifted.

Sacks is one of thousands of Americans believed to be refusing to pay the federal taxes attached to their monthly phone bills -- money that helps fund military operations overseas.

Many are taking the step as a protest against the war in Iraq. And in many cases, the phone companies are helping them do it.

"We oppose the policies of 'pre-emptive war' and an 'endless' war on terrorism, which led to the Iraq war, which violate human rights and international law, and which have cost us hundreds of billions of dollars while our states and cities face unprecedented deficits, and cutbacks of vital services and programs," reads the statement on a Web site called hanguponwar.org.

And yes, phone companies are actively participating by waiving the tax and dropping it from the bills of those who ask.

Qwest Communications International Inc., which provides local phone service to most of the Seattle area, thinks the excise tax is "a silly tax that should go away," company spokeswoman Shasha Richardson said.

The Denver-based company said it adjusts customers' bills to remove the excise tax. It then complies with IRS Publication No. 510, Richardson said.

That publication requires providers of local, toll or private communications services to impose and collect a 3 percent tax on services rendered. If customers fail to pay it, the companies must give the IRS a list of those customers' names and addresses, the services provided, the dates and the amounts the customers owed.

Some phone companies may repeatedly insist that the money is due. Others, such as Qwest, make it easy for the protester.

"We believe this is an illegal tax, and we would support any legislation that repeals it," said John Britton, a spokesman for AT&T.

He said AT&T will routinely eliminate federal excise taxes from customers' monthly bills if asked to do so in writing.

"We'll go into our system and make an adjustment," Britton said. "But we will have to report you to the government."

For its part, Cingular Wireless sends a letter to tax-resisting customers agreeing that the federal excise tax is "antiquated and discriminatory" and that it has "has far outlived its purpose."

"Please be aware, however," Cingular's letter warns, "that as required by law, Cingular Wireless will report your non-payment, and provide your name, address, amount of tax written off to the IRS."

Cingular, MCI and Verizon Wireless all say they adjust customers' monthly bills to write off the federal excise tax on a regular basis.

The companies above are clearly complicit in the criminal activity. Why are they not being prosecuted -- and in the case of the wireless companies, why are their frequencies not being taken back?

And what is this "illegal tax" garbage that is being put out by AT&T?

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that the government is also failing to go after those who refuse to pay. One woman reportedly has not paid since the Reagan Administration.

Tax evasion and conspiracy to evade taxes. Should be grounds for a nice long prison sentence -- and a fine that will more than cover back taxes and the cost of prosecution.

Posted by: Greg at 03:45 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 741 words, total size 5 kb.

Sait appears that too many of those in positions of influence within the Democrat Party are more concerned about electoral success than the good of the nation.

Sen. Joe Lieberman's staunch stay-the-course defense of President Bush's Iraq policies isn't winning him any friends among fellow Democrats.

Lieberman's pro-war views may be winning him praise from a grateful White House, but some Democratic colleagues see him as undercutting their party's efforts to wrest control of Congress from the GOP next fall.

"He's doing damage to the ability of Democrats to wage a national campaign," said Ken Dautrich, a University of Connecticut public policy professor. "It's Lieberman being Lieberman. And it's frustrating for people trying to put a Democratic strategy together."

Gee -- one politician's support for victory on the Iraqi front of the Crusade Against Islamist Terror hurts the party's chance of success? I take it, then, that the leadership is really seeking to cast the Democrats as the party of retreat and surrender

Posted by: Greg at 03:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

When you put the government in charge, you are sure to get less than optimal results.

Take this as an example of what the British health system is like.

One of the most decorated British fighter pilots of the Second World War has sold his medals, diaries and other memorabilia partly to pay for a hip replacement operation for his wife who faced at least a six-month wait on the National Health Service.

Sqn Ldr Neville Duke, 83, the Royal Air Force's top-scoring ace in the Mediterranean theatre who set a world air speed record of 728 mph in 1953, put the collection up for auction rather than subject his wife Gwen to months of pain and discomfort while she waited for an operation.

The standard waiting time for hip replacements in the orthopaedic department at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital, one of the nearest facilities to the Dukes' home, is six months.

The couple was told that the wait might be up to 15 months -- an eternity for those in serious pain.

So much for the thanks of a grateful nation.

Posted by: Greg at 04:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I love how the Washington Post spun this one on its homepage.

Tex. Judge Upholds Key Charges Against DeLay

Interestingly enough, that isn't really true. The conspiracy charge, the easiest to prove under Texas law, has been thrown out. Not to mention that the excluded charge was the only charge that the grand jury which investigated the case brought. Those that remain are more difficult to prove and were part of Ronnie Earle's "do-over" strategy that involved grand jury shopping and tampering to shore up a case that has been collapsing since the original indictment was brought.

So what happened today?

A judge dismissed a conspiracy charge Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay but refused to throw out the far more serious allegations of money-laundering, dashing the congressman's hopes for now of reclaiming his post as House majority leader.

Texas Judge Pat Priest, who is presiding over the case against the Republican, issued the ruling after a hearing late last month in which DeLay's attorney argued that the indictment was fatally flawed.

***

The ruling means the case will move toward a trial next year, though other defense objections to the indictments remain to be heard by the judge.

Yes, the other motions could result in the dismissal of the remaining charges.

The judge has yet to rule on a defense bid to move DeLay's trial out of liberal, Democratic-leaning Austin and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. DeGuerin accused the district attorney of shopping the DeLay case around to different grand juries until he found one that would indict the congressman.

As I pointed out earlier, there is substantial basis for href="http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/124724.php">finding prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Ronnie Earle.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Lone Star Times,Martin's Musings, Conservative Outpost, Blogs for Bush, Super Fun Power Hour, Oblogatory Anecdotes, GOPBloggers, bRight and Early, Iowa Voice

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 4 kb.

Columnist Vin Sprynowicz offers the following suggestion on how to end the all too common problem of cops shooting off duty cops -- especially black off-duty cops.

Instead of disarming off-duty cops so the police can continue to feel free to shoot anyone out of uniform who they see with a gun (especially if he's black), why not alter police training as follows?

"This is an armed nation. Twenty-five percent of your fellow 'civilians' own firearms, and have a God-given right to carry them around. Except for writing traffic tickets for revenue, they have just as much right to chase and apprehend a fleeing felon -- or to present a weapon in defense of themselves or others -- as you do. This includes black folks. Get used to it.

"So, even though it may initially seem to make our jobs harder, let's stop hassling people when we perceive they have guns. If a call comes in reporting a 'man with a gun,' let's ask whether the man is brandishing or threatening anyone, and otherwise advise the caller that being armed is not a crime.

"And, particularly, let's stop shooting people who draw their guns when they're being assaulted. Yes, pausing those extra few seconds may sometimes put your own life in danger. This is still a less-dangerous job than hard-rock mining or fishing in Alaska, and you volunteered for it."

The right to keep and bear arms has been present in the US Constitution for over two centuries. It is time for the police to quit treating those who exercise it like criminals.

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Post doesn't want any more discussion of focus on Democrat racism in the Maryland Senatorial campaign.

Maybe that was inevitable, given the candidacy of Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, an appealing, relatively conservative black Republican. Mr. Steele, the presumptive GOP nominee, has delighted Republicans and unnerved many Democrats for precisely the same reason -- the chance that he may shave off slices of the Democrats' traditionally solid base of African Americans, who make up more than a quarter of Maryland's electorate. Like black Republican candidates elsewhere, Mr. Steele has been attacked by some black Democrats who suggest -- outrageously -- that the fact of his party membership constitutes a betrayal and an affront to African Americans. As former NAACP chief and congressman Kweise Mfume, himself a candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination, pointed out in the Washington Times, "Black bigotry can be just as cruel and evil as white bigotry."

It would be naive to think race and racism would not be a factor in the campaign. Last month a liberal black blogger in New York posted a doctored image of Mr. Steele as a minstrel, demonstrating that nauseating racial taunts are alive and well in the blogosphere. In Maryland's 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Steele attended a debate at which Oreo cookies were distributed or tossed (accounts differ) as a slur directed at him. No one has forgotten that in 2001, when Mr. Steele chaired the state Republican Party, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) referred to him as an "Uncle Tom," thereby disgracing only himself; he later apologized for the remark. Moreover, a number of current Democratic candidates -- including Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin in the Senate race and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan in the gubernatorial race -- have, by refusing explicitly to condemn black Democrats for their poisonous comments about Mr. Steele, given the impression that racially tinged political rhetoric is within the bounds of civil debate. It is not.

Which is why, of course, the GOP is so concerned about exposing racism and eradicating it in American political life -- as has been the Party's policy, mandate, and mission since its founding inthe 1850s as a vehicle for stopping the spread of slavery and promoting the emancipation of slaves. It has been the mission of GOP to promote civil rights for African-Americans and promote their election to office, pushing through every major civil rights initiative in the nation's history and breaking ground as the only party to nominate and elect black candidates to national office for decades, until the days of FDR and beyond. It continues to be the mission of the GOP, as it cultivates and nominates highly qualified African-Americans as candidates and appointees to high office based upon their qualifications. And as they have done since the days of Jim Crow and the original nightriders of the KKK, Democrats seek to destroy any uppity Negro who dares align himself with the Republican Party and its platform of full inclusion for all Americans. Why wouldn't we expose real, tangible acts of racim and the racists who promote the ideology of hate?

Still, it would be equally naive to overlook the Republicans' evident satisfaction in keeping the debate focused on race rather than, say, party affiliation or ideological affinity, which can only hurt the GOP in a state where Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 advantage. The Republicans have not manufactured the current furor, but they are exploiting and perpetuating it. After all, it's not the candidates vying for statewide public office in Maryland who have played the race card.

Haven't they? Or rather, haven't their supporters? And given that some candidates for the Democrat nomination refuse to denounce the racist activities and rhetoric of their own supporters, is it not right and proper for that to be made an issue in the campaign? If that is exploitation and perpetuation of the race issue, then I am all for it!

The wisest way out of the racial morass is for all the talking heads to give it a rest. Let cool heads prevail and force the candidates to talk about the most pressing issues facing Maryland and the nation. The debate about Mr. Steele, as about his rivals for the Senate, should be about his record, his beliefs, his abilities and his vision. It should not be about his race. And politicians who insist or consent in making the election about race run the risk of punishment at the polls.

So what i hear you saying, then is that issues of race and racism are not pressing ones, and therefore should not be discussed. You are trying to tell me that the use of racist rhetoric and the hurling of terms like "race traitor" and "Uncle Tom" at a candidate are not a concern to the Washington Post. That is rather striking to me.

But none of this is particularly surprising to me. The Washington Post has been little more than an in-house unit -- let's call it an outhouse unit -- of the DNC for years.

And since a continued focus on Democrat racism would be bad for the Party of Slavery and Jim Crow, discussion of racism has got to go.

UPDATE: Interestingly enough, those who are not wholly owned subsidiaries of the DNC disagree with the Post.

"I would say to Michael Steele that he should continue to use the race issue to his advantage but not to simply use it the way it has been rolled out there, but to use it in creative ways that might help him to pick up that small group of African-Americans in the state that he's going to need to win," said Ronald Walters, a professor of at the University of Maryland and director of the African-American Leadership Institute.

Posted by: Greg at 07:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 987 words, total size 6 kb.

My latest troll, howard, seems to have fallen into the same trap that too many folks have fallen victim to over the years regarding the Voting Rights Act.

And by the way, have you explained to your students why part of their voting rights( the black ones off course) is going to expire in 2007( we are still talking about this TODAY!)

He is not the first I have met who has fallen under the spell of the seemingly-true urban legend, nor will he be the last. I've had a student in my college-level class wave a flyer distributed at her church in my face while wailing about "Bush wants to keep black people from voting...." I've had high school students engage in a rowdy oration about the issue during a discussion of the importance of voting. I've even received a copy of an email, forwarded to the entire school, from an otherwise level-headed colleague in another department. So I really do not think howard is mentally defective for mentioning this in one of his disjointed, race-baiting, Republican-hating rants. He is just misguided, misled, and misinformed.

Let's look at the claim in the form I've most often seen it, as archived at Snopes.com, that great site for debunking or confirming urban legends.

As everyone should be aware, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voters Rights Act. This was created to allow Blacks the right to vote.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed an amendment to extend this right for an additional twenty-five years. You guessed it . . . In 2007 (ten years from now), Congress will decide whether or not Blacks should retain the right to vote. In order for this to be passed, thirty-eight states will have to approve an extension. For me, as well as many others, this was the first time that we had heard this -- thus, bringing concern to all of us! What many Blacks before us fought and even died for as well as the milestones that we, as Blacks have achieved, this can be taken away from us . . . AGAIN!

If this issue has taken you by surprise as well, I encourage YOU to contact your Congressperson, alderperson, senator — anyone in government, that you put your vote behind and ask them what are they doing to — firstly, to get the extension and furthermore, make our right to vote a LAW. This has to become a law in order for our right to vote to no longer be up for discussion, review and/or evaluation. (Remember: Blacks are the only group of people who require permission under the United States Constitution to vote!)

As Black people, we cannot "drop the ball" on this one! We have come too far to be forced to take such a large step back. So, please let's push on and forward to continue to build the momentum towards gaining equality. Please pass this on to others, as I am sure that many more individuals are not aware of this.

Now this email carries in it a number of fundamental errors, mixed with just enough fact to make it plausible.

To begin with, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not grant any race or ethnicity the right to vote. That right is guaranteed in the Fifteenth Amendment.

AMENDMENT XV

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So you see, the right to vote is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, not a STATUTORY one. Clause 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment is the relevant section that guarantees that right.

Clause 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to enforce the right guaranteed by the preceeding clause. That is where the Voting Rights act of 1965 enters into the picture -- just not in the way the email would have folks believe.

We all know the sad history of race relaitions and oppression in the southern states where, under the rule of the racist Democrat Party, virtually all civil rights were denied to African-Americans for decades. Federal legislation protecting the voting rights of blacks was repealed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Grover Cleveland. In 1964, the Twenty-Fourth Amendment barred poll taxes, but left in place many of the other tactics used to deny the right to vote. As a result, legislation was passed in 1965 to allow for federal action to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment right to vote.

The measures contained in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 fell into two categories. Portions of the legislation -- with no expiration date -- were intended to ensure that blacks (as well as other minority groups) could fully participate in the electoral system free from discrimination.

Other provisions were set to expire in five years. These were a set of truly heroic measures designed to force the registration of minority voters and their access to the polls, including authorizing the deputizing of federal voter registrars, the placement of federal election observers, and the requirement that jurisdictions with a history of racial discriminationin voting receive federal preclearance of any changes in voting districs or procedures. They were renewed in 1970, and permitted to expire by the Democrat-controlled Congress and Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1980. In 1982, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed a statute passed by a Congress with control divided between the two parties, extending the "temporary" provisions for another quarter century, until 2007, which leads us to the present situation and the falsehood circulating among many people of good-will, including my commenter.

Now I've already spoken to the issue of whether or not the provisions should be renewed in an earlier post.

Let them expire, or fix them to meet the realities of the present day.

I believe they should be allowed to expire as the authors of the statute intended -- or, barring that, extended to cover every jurisdiction in the United States and not just a few which denied the franchise a generation ago. The current two-tiered system of voting rights enforcement needs to be eliminated. We have, as a society, moved beyond the need for such special measures, despite the attempts of partisan activists to manufacture controversies to justify their own existance. And as the Justice Department points out, any one of the provisions of the VRA could be reinstituted in any area where there is proven contemporary discrimination. But what is clear is that this will in no way constitute the expiration of anyone's voting rights!

So howard, don't worry -- you'll still be able to vote in 2008 for a candidate of the party that enslaved your people and prevented your ancestors from voting or exercising their civil rights for a couple generations afterward, while heaping abuse upon the party that freed your ancestors and overwhelmingly supported every single major piece of civil rights legislation in American history.

LINKED TO: LaShawn Barber, Everyday Thoughts

Posted by: Greg at 06:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1205 words, total size 8 kb.

I can’t help but notice a certain omission from this article about an FBI investigation into political corruption in West Virginia.

The three men were sitting in a car outside a rural elementary school in West Virginia when the candidate handed over $2,000 in cash and said, "Buy all the votes you can."

In the hamlets and hollows of Logan County, where political shenanigans are legendary and it's said that a vote can be bought for a pint of whiskey or a $10 bill, some say there was nothing extraordinary about the transaction.

Here's what made it unusual: Although Thomas E. Esposito was on the ballot as a candidate for the state House of Delegates, he wasn't really running for office.
The small-town lawyer and former mayor was just bait. And when the FBI lowered him into the murky waters of southern West Virginia politics last year, it dangled him like a shiny lure.

The whole affair landed yesterday in a Charleston courtroom, where a defense attorney cried foul, accusing the government of "outrageous" conduct and of violating the sanctity of the election process. He said the charade robbed 2,175 citizens who voted for Esposito -- unaware he wasn't for real -- of a constitutional right.

But a federal judge sided with the government, ruling after a 30-minute hearing that corruption in Logan County had been endemic "for longer than living memory" and that the bogus election campaign might have been the only way to root it out.

Which is not to say that there was never a mention of which political party is rancid with corruption. The article finally got around to providing that detail about 1/3 of the way through the second page. That should be a big clue right there as to why the party is obscured in the article.

Yeah, you got it – the criminals corrupting the system are Democrats.

Now we can argue about whether or not the FBI tactic here was appropriate -- but we can't argue that the party affiliation was pretty throughly hidden.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

I canÂ’t help but notice a certain omission from this article about an FBI investigation into political corruption in West Virginia.

The three men were sitting in a car outside a rural elementary school in West Virginia when the candidate handed over $2,000 in cash and said, "Buy all the votes you can."

In the hamlets and hollows of Logan County, where political shenanigans are legendary and it's said that a vote can be bought for a pint of whiskey or a $10 bill, some say there was nothing extraordinary about the transaction.

Here's what made it unusual: Although Thomas E. Esposito was on the ballot as a candidate for the state House of Delegates, he wasn't really running for office.
The small-town lawyer and former mayor was just bait. And when the FBI lowered him into the murky waters of southern West Virginia politics last year, it dangled him like a shiny lure.

The whole affair landed yesterday in a Charleston courtroom, where a defense attorney cried foul, accusing the government of "outrageous" conduct and of violating the sanctity of the election process. He said the charade robbed 2,175 citizens who voted for Esposito -- unaware he wasn't for real -- of a constitutional right.

But a federal judge sided with the government, ruling after a 30-minute hearing that corruption in Logan County had been endemic "for longer than living memory" and that the bogus election campaign might have been the only way to root it out.

Which is not to say that there was never a mention of which political party is rancid with corruption. The article finally got around to providing that detail about 1/3 of the way through the second page. That should be a big clue right there as to why the party is obscured in the article.

Yeah, you got it – the criminals corrupting the system are Democrats.

Now we can argue about whether or not the FBI tactic here was appropriate -- but we can't argue that the party affiliation was pretty throughly hidden.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

When an agency of the US government is acting to undermine the elected representatives of the American people, it is time for Congress to investigate, and perhaps abolish, that agency.

Especially when those within the agency -- which is charged with protecting national security and aiding the war effort -- are leaking national security information in a desperate attempt to undermine the war effort.

The Dec. 1 edition of The New York Times carried a story about the damage done to U.S. interests by the revelation that the CIA maintains a number of secret interrogation prisons for terrorists in Europe and elsewhere. ("Reports of Secret U.S. Prisons in Europe Draw Ire and Otherwise Red Faces.") Governments throughout the continent are now demanding explanations from the U.S. Department of State and otherwise strutting their outrage that the U.S. might be kidnapping suspected terrorists from European soil and transferring them to other nations.

How did this bit of classified information become public? It was a leak from within the CIA (to The Washington Post in that case) -- and a breathtaking one at that. Though the agency has been steadily leaking damaging stories about the Bush administration since 9/11, it has now crossed a new threshold with a leak that severely damages CIA activities and arguably harms national security -- all for the sake of crippling George W. Bush.

If the leaking of the name of a stateside non-covert CIA employeeÂ’s name merited investigation, how much more does this violation of national security coming from within the CIA itself?

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

Was John Murtha, once long ago, a hero? Perhaps, but I donÂ’t care

Really, I donÂ’t.

I don’t care if he has this medal or that award – or even if he single-handedly thwarted an alien invasion from the Planet Zarg. None of it matters – and all of it is irrelevant.

It isn't relevant to the debate.

Not after he has denigrated the service of our men and women fighting today, and indicated that they have been beaten by a rag-tag band of terrorists.

Rep. John P. Murtha is continuing his assault on the Bush administration's Iraq war policy, asserting this week that the U.S. Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth."

The Pentagon and a senior Republican senator sharply disagreed with his assessment.

Speaking to civic leaders Wednesday in Latrobe, Pa., in his home district, Mr. Murtha also said the Pennsylvania National Guard is stretched so thin that it will take a year before it can send fully equipped units overseas again.

"You cannot win this thing militarily," Mr. Murtha said later at a press conference. "Most of [U.S. troops] will be out of there in a year if I have my way."

The Murtha plan is now perfectly clear – “We’ve lost – cut-and-run, boys!”

Might I offer a few words from a leader from our past -- one Abraham Lincoln?

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

I’ll reserve judgment as to which is the best way of dealing with Congressman Murtha, or whether such a course of action is advisable. But I will say this much – his statements certainly render void any political coverage to which his past service may have entitled him.

ANd let me add that I've read and heard the words of Jean Schmidt.

She did not call the man a coward.

But she should have.

And I do.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.